Given the high visibility of the websites 911Research.WTC7.net, WTC7.net, and 911Review.com, it is not surprising that their URLs would be turning up in many places as a result of entirely independent efforts. We commend the work of individuals to promote these websites and thereby increase the reach of the information they contain. At the same time, we urge people to undertake such promotion in a way that is respectful and intelligent.
9-11 Research Advocates Civility
9-11 Research has received several complaints from ungrateful recipients of literature mentioning it. We even received a report of graffiti spelling out the companion site 911Review.com. It is tempting to think that the urgency of the message justifies intrusive campaigning methods. However, such methods are likely to be counterproductive. We recommend handing out literature, such as we provide here, as the best way of distributing it.
In early 2006 we became aware of a number of incidents connecting promotion of these websites with militance and vulgarity. We strongly discourage such tactics and note that they are counterproductive to our educational mission. We describe some of the incidents we have learned of on pages with specific disclaimers.
- 9-11 Research does not advocate the breaking of any laws
- 9-11 Research does not advocate intrusive or offensive tactics
Since the inception of our research we have noticed efforts to inject racist ideologies such as anti-Semitism into analysis of the 9/11 attack -- efforts which effectively polarize people against questioning the official versions of events.
9-11 Research Stresses Verifiable Information and Rational Analysis
|It is common to see links or references to 9-11 Research next to other sites promoting some of the most transparently nonsensical theories -- such as 911Review.org, which features ad hominem attacks against Jim Hoffman.|
9-11 Research has built its reputation on verifiably sourced reporting, systematic and thorough collection and archiving of evidence, and rational, science-based analysis. It and its companion sites are extensively referenced by a wide range of websites and other productions, many without similar standards.
Readers seeing the URL or name of 9-11 Research on productions notable for unscientific, sensationalistic, or nonsensical approaches may form negative opinions of 9-11 Research without having seen the website. We have no control over who references our website or how they contextualize such references.
We have observed that efforts that function to mischaracterize or discredit 9-11 Research are varied, being intended and unintended, taking explicit and implicit forms, and coming from proponents and opponents of the official story. Acting as an apologist for the official story, Michael Shermer penned a column in Scientific American which explicitly misrepresented 9-11 Research as embracing the fire-melts-steel straw man argument, and implicitly misrepresented it by associating it with junk science and Holocaust denial. Such attacks work hand-in-hand with efforts to associate 9-11 Research with the junk science that is endemic in the literature of 9/11 skeptics. An example is described on this page:
Claims that no jetliners were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center, the attack Pentagon, or the crash in Pennsylvania have been aggressively promoted and featured in the mainstream media. As a result many people have falsely equated the 9/11 Truth Movement with the 'no-jetliners' theories. We do not endorse such theories: